ABSTRACT
Compared to traditional manufacturing methods, additive manufacturing and 3D printing stand out in their ability to rapidly fabricate complex structures and precise geometries. The growing need for products with different designs, purposes and materials led to the development of 3D printing, serving as a driving force for the 4th industrial revolution and digitization of manufacturing. 3D printing has had a global impact on healthcare, with patient-customized implants now replacing generic implantable medical devices. This revolution has had a particularly significant impact on oral and maxillofacial surgery, where surgeons rely on precision medicine in everyday practice. Trauma, orthognathic surgery and total joint replacement therapy represent several examples of treatments improved by 3D technologies. The widespread and rapid implementation of 3D technologies in clinical settings has led to the development of point-of-care treatment facilities with in-house infrastructure, enabling surgical teams to participate in the 3D design and manufacturing of devices. 3D technologies have had a tremendous impact on clinical outcomes and on the way clinicians approach treatment planning. The current review offers our perspective on the implementation of 3D-based technologies in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, while indicating major clinical applications. Moreover, the current report outlines the 3D printing point-of-care concept in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: Immediate implant placement (IIP) is a popular surgical procedure with a 94.9-98.4% survival rate and 97.8-100% success rate. In the posterior mandible, it poses a risk of injury to adjacent anatomical structures if the implant engages apical bone. This study sought to assess the implant dimensions that allow for circumferential bone engagement at each position in the posterior mandible without additional apical drilling. Materials and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study design was used. The pre-extraction cone beam computed tomography scans of 100 candidates for IIP were analyzed. Measurements of each root of the posterior mandibular second premolar, first molar, and second molar were taken from three aspects: buccolingual, mesiodistal, and vertical. Two-sided p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 478 mandibular teeth and 781 roots were assessed. Based on Straumann® BLX/BLT implant-drilling protocols, predicted rates of radiological circumferential engagement (RCE) were 96% for implants 5 mm in diameter in the second premolar root position; 94% for implants 4.0-4.2 mm in diameter in the first molar root position; and 99% for implants 4.5-4.8 mm in diameter in the second molar root position. Corresponding rates of achieving an available implant length (AIL) of 10 mm were 99%, 90%, and 86%. Patients <40 years old were at higher risk of lower RCE and lower AIL (p < 0.005) than older patients for all roots measured. Conclusions: The high primary stability prediction rates based on the calculation of RCE and AIL support the use of IIPs without further apical drilling in the posterior mandible in most cases.
